You're doing it wrong!

[sobrique]

So how do you tell the religions of the world that they've got it all wrong?

Here is the problem - a religion is a structure built by men. It's using 'access to divinity' as a basis for assertion of power. The clergy are no more holy than you are. Or anyone else for that matter. They have no special insight in to the mind of God.

Perhaps they're better educated than average - less the case now, but certainly in the past this was so - and thus worth listing to for the sake of their knowledge and wisdom. But the whole thing built on the false pretence that God cares about your individual destiny.

We have this conceit, humankind, that God loves us. That the world is ordered, and layed out with a plan, and God orchestrates it all. And conceit it is - there is nothing in the way of proof that this is the case.

It's based on this assumption of control. That the universe itself is controlled and orchestrated. This I believe, is grounded in the fact that we're all ... well, a bit unprepared for the concept that there might be nothing else. That this might be our only shot at existance, and there really is no one holding our hand.

But it's not. The Universe is more a work of art, than a planned mechanism. Complicated and intricate, with much beauty at all scales, from the intergalactic, down to the fantasically fascinating interactions at the subatomic scale. This work of art unfolds, evolves and shifts. Maybe it's for a reason, but ... art has no need for a purposes - that it exists is enough.

So for all your prayers, remember this. A prayer doesn't change anything. There is no one listening, no one caring about how sad you are. A prayer is meditation. It's focussing _your_ mind on the things at hand - what is important, what is not. And that's good. Just don't go thinking there's any intervention coming, because there isn't.

There is something that set the Universe in motion. There's something that gives us all the ability to think for ourselves. There's something that set in motion the seeds of life itself. Now stop being sheep, and use that gift. Choose to be yourself, not part of the flock.

Comments

[fearmeforiampink]

The problem is, faith. As well as intentioned as it might be, telling people what they believe is wrong, isn't going to get that far just with a hope they'll see they're wrong.

[jorune.livejournal.com]

Beliefs are awkward, if only there was some way that you could prove something in a rational and logical manner. If only we had that then mothers could prove to daughters that their new boyfriend was bad for them, that football team A was better than team B and that cats are superior to dogs.

[fearmeforiampink]

But mothers are often wrong, and both cats and dogs have their own advantages. And new useful new ideas often come from the contention between existing ideas – when thesis and antithesis meet, synthesis, best of both, can be formed.

[malal.livejournal.com]

if only there was some way that you could prove something in a rational and logical manner

http://imgs.xkcd.com/store/imgs/science_square_0.png

I CBA to find the relevant comic - if indeed there is one.

Though, I will admit, it's not entirely useful in some of the cases quoted.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

You're arguing subjective criteria though - a new boyfriend _might_ be bad for them, but the longer timeframe might provide a valuable insight into the human condition.

Dealing with some sordid and petty evil is unpleasant, but mgiht just mean that it doesn't pass un-noticed in future.

Or maybe it'll just make them wiser than before, and let them grow a bit. So in interfering, you're doing more harm than good, even if you are right.

Why might it not be this way for God?

[serpentstar.livejournal.com]

Suspect you're preaching to the choir, here. :)

I like the old Gnostic idea -- there's no need for priests and popes as intercessors between humans and the Divine (whatever that might be -- and "the observable Universe" is as good an idea as any, and better than most). Everyone can do it.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

I've quite liked that thought too, ever since I started reading up on Taoism.

It's particularly tough to explain, because it's just so very simple and elegant. And as such, if you get it, you get it, there is no massive journey into the priesthood and enlightement. But there's a struggle to hold onto a simple and ephemeral concept that is 'Tao is'.

[serpentstar.livejournal.com]

Yeah, Taoism makes a lot of sense, too. I have a lot of time for all the (admittedly few) religions that don't actually claim to be true.

[mcnazgul.livejournal.com]

You don't because they aren't.

Believing everyone in all organised religions have got it wrong pre-supposes you know what's right? If you did then things would be very different, not only for you but for everyone else in the immediate area.

Your argument is flawed on the following points:

This is a universe with structure; thermodynamics does not allow for cellular existence in all it's imperfections; evolution of organ development (such as that found in the bombadier beetle) is ridiculously against the odds. The mere fact your grandmothers and grandfathers met, married and produced your parents who in turn did the same for you is based on a series of events that defies probability. Alan Moore says this eloquently in Watchmen.

On an subjective level, prayer changes perception. Even the act of cognition of a situation alters it at a subjective level; by surrendering your need for control over that situation to a higher power, you've acknowledged the presence of a higher power and your need for something to intervene.

If it happens is another matter (you still have a say in how it turns out even if you've relinquished control) which means you can still make a difference. However, you changed your perception of the situation at a subjective level. And if the universe agrees with you - great!

To believe the universe is art presupposes the existence of an artist; presupposes a message to be interpreted (even if it's nothing more than a doodle indicating 'God I'm bored') by those who can understand such subtleties. To believe that it is a series of random events collaged together with elements thrown in according to blind circumstance cheapens the whole experience.

This world, this life is much more than sound & fury, signifying nothing. How would Newton have stood on the shoulders of giants if those giants had been scrawling doggerel in taverns or laying in the arms of their lovers instead of following the inspiration that there was an order to such things and laying down a trail for others to follow.

Yes there have been evils worked in the name of divinity; there has also been considerable good done in the same names. Do we therefore condemn the whole structure? Do we throw out the care shown to the injured, the advancement of academic sciences by forming universities to lament fallen soldiers or food brought to the starving because people have been people?

Being able to think independently does not lessen your ability to be part of something greater. That choice is always up to you and if you prefer to stand apart, that's your decision. Even if you're a wolf, you know what a pack is...

Though life is rarely easy, I know I am loved.

[fearmeforiampink]

thermodynamics does not allow for cellular existence in all it's imperfections;

O RLY? Please tell me you're not using the "The earth needs an external power source" entropy argument...

evolution of organ development (such as that found in the bombadier beetle) is ridiculously against the odds.

And had a long time to meet those odds.

The mere fact your grandmothers and grandfathers met, married and produced your parents who in turn did the same for you is based on a series of events that defies probability

Only from the position of someone trying to predict the production of a sobrique in advance. The chance of someone rolling along from the population producing the next generation is quite a reasonable possibility.

YA SRSLY

[mcnazgul.livejournal.com]

Earth doesn't need an external power source unless you discount the presence of celestial bodies who don't always have a helpful influence on the biosphere. However, the external power source does tie into mitochondria in cells; if planning on evolving into amoeba, you need something to perpetuate the strenous activity of genetic reproduction.

Evidence exists for mitochondria being external organisms caught within a membrane who had to evolve a symbiotic relationship in return for very limited travel/reproduction opportunities and all the glucose they can metabolise. There's nothing in it for the mitochondria yet they're the only way a cell gets enough power to do the job.

Interesting point about the bombadier beetle - the mixture of the chemicals it uses occurs in an organ that is almost the perfectly wrong place to do so. There are organisms with similar organs that aren't as near-suicidal as the bombadier beetle but for some reason, the imperfection has perpetuated over millions of years.

The fact that sobrique has become who he is is the culmination of a series of events which if you take them on their raw probability is so very outside the pale that you would almost certainly discount it as statistically infeasible.

And yet, he exists!

[malal.livejournal.com]

Time to nit pick I'm afraid.

To believe that it is a series of random events collaged together with elements thrown in according to blind circumstance cheapens the whole experience.

Why? It's not at all obvious that that would follow.

How would Newton have stood on the shoulders of giants if those giants had been scrawling doggerel in taverns or laying in the arms of their lovers instead of following the inspiration that there was an order to such things and laying down a trail for others to follow.

While a fair point, that's kinda off topic. What does a belief in order have to do with a discussion on religion? Nothing so far has been arguing against it.

Yes there have been evils worked in the name of divinity; there has also been considerable good done in the same names.

Agreed.

Do we therefore condemn the whole structure?

Maybe. As always, it should be debated & questioned. Does it on balance cause more good that evil? It's not a question I feel at all armed to tackle.

Do we throw out the care shown to the injured, the advancement of academic sciences by forming universities to lament fallen soldiers or food brought to the starving because people have been people?

None of them are intrinsically tied to religion though. Heck, I'm not even sure that they're even mostly done via religion, but the numbers to back that up are going to be hard to dig up.

[zaitan.livejournal.com]

Believing everyone in all organised religions have got it wrong pre-supposes you know what's right?

You do not have to have the right answer to a problem to falsify somebody elses.

...evolution of organ development (such as that found in the bombadier beetle) is ridiculously against the odds.

Why did you not mention the bacterial flagellum, or the human eye? All the examples that have been offered up as examples of 'intelligent design' have been demonstrated to be evolvable without massive steps. Just because something is amazingly complex and we cannot easily explain it, do not automatically make it 'divine' in creation.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

The puddle doesn't wonder why it's formed in exactly the right spot for there to be a puddle. The Universe is big, and improbability - yeah, that's true. How many times have the dice been rolled though.

And yes, we've seen both good and evil commited in the name of God. I'm just trying to put forth that ... actually, these things don't exist for an objective reason - they just are.

I'd say actually, that it's the evil in the world that's done most good for us as a species - it's in the darkest times when the light is most needed and most valued.

A world where everyone is comfortable, is a world filled with mediocrity. So perhaps this unfolding of works of good, and works of evil are just all part of the plan. You can have no heros when there are no villains, after all. Why then do you need to intervene? We're doing wonderfully as a species at adapting, shifting, changing and defining.

Doing good, doing ill. Being thoroughly bloody minded, cold blooded, dark and cruel. And learning that set against such a background, the simplest things are those that are valuable and beautiful.

The complicated work of art has it's dark elements, and it's light, and between them a contrast is defined. This contrast is one of elegance and beauty, that may or may not be the unveiling of the mind of it's creator. But the dots of paint in the shadow may never know that they're allowing beauty to stand forth by their existence.

1

[ash1977law.livejournal.com]

This is a universe with structure; thermodynamics does not allow for cellular existence in all it's imperfections; evolution of organ development (such as that found in the bombadier beetle) is ridiculously against the odds. The mere fact your grandmothers and grandfathers met, married and produced your parents who in turn did the same for you is based on a series of events that defies probability. Alan Moore says this eloquently in Watchmen. This argument is flawed. Your grandmother and grandfather met, history worked out a particular way, the laws of the universe are just so... and thus you exist. You then make the argument that since your existence is so vastly improbable that it must be divinely mandated, forgetting that all the other possible almost-were outcomes are equally improbable. Your existence is as statistically unlikely as any other happening.
To simplify. Two men meet. One has a gun and a coin. He tells the other man that he will flip the coin and if it comes up tails he will kill him. The coin is flipped, and comes up heads. The other man then falls to his knees and exclaims that God obviously intended for him to live or the coin would have come up tails. Had the coin come up tails and the man been killed he would not be alive to declare that God obviously wanted him dead.

I also think you misunderstand the law of thermodynamics as they do allow for evolution and fluctuation of the energy gradient on a local scale for finite periods, just not an a universal lifetime scale.

On an subjective level, prayer changes perception. Even the act of cognition of a situation alters it at a subjective level; by surrendering your need for control over that situation to a higher power, you've acknowledged the presence of a higher power and your need for something to intervene.
If it happens is another matter (you still have a say in how it turns out even if you've relinquished control) which means you can still make a difference. However, you changed your perception of the situation at a subjective level. And if the universe agrees with you - great!

... so ... by this argument wishing upon a star or rubbing a lucky troll are equivalent to prayer? I think you are confused. The purpose of prayer is to make contact with a force outside of oneself to supplicate for objective change, to request guidance or assistance, to communicate with the divine, or similar. Prayer is not a method of altering subjective perception of situations - that is called "looking on the bright side" or "hoping for the best" or "shrugging and trusting to blind luck".

To believe the universe is art presupposes the existence of an artist. Not so. Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. A computer can produce images pleasing to the eye from a set of mathematical principles and simple rules, without the need for any consciousness to be involved save the viewer. That we find the universe beautiful says more about us than the universe.

To believe that it is a series of random events collaged together with elements thrown in according to blind circumstance cheapens the whole experience. Not so. I find that presuming the existence of God to cheapen the whole experience. That such beautiful (and sometimes ugly) complexity can arise from seeming chaos through the expression of simple rules is a wonderful thing, to suppose a creator/designer pre-planning it means that it is artificial and somehow taudry. However, that you find one thing beautiful and I another is subjective.

2

[ash1977law.livejournal.com]

This world, this life is much more than sound & fury, signifying nothing.
I agree. The universe is chaos, meaningless and uncaring. It is through our actions and interpretation of events that the universe has meaning. The Mona Lisa is after all just a load of paint on a canvas, it is not until viewed and appreciated that it has beauty or meaning - and that beauty and meaning is supplied by us the viewers. It is not necessary to have Da Vinci alive to tell us that it is beautiful, or to supply the meaning to the enigma of that smile.

How would Newton have stood on the shoulders of giants if those giants had been scrawling doggerel in taverns or laying in the arms of their lovers instead of following the inspiration that there was an order to such things and laying down a trail for others to follow.
To quote Homer (Simpson) "Can't it be both?". Why must we divide men (and women) into people who like a pint and a laugh and the company of good women (and men), and people who are "inspired"? As for "scrawling doggerel in taverns" I would like to point you to: Da Vinci, Picasso, Shakespeare, Marlow, Me. Great work is often undertaken in taverns.

Yes there have been evils worked in the name of divinity; there has also been considerable good done in the same names. Do we therefore condemn the whole structure? Do we throw out the care shown to the injured, the advancement of academic sciences by forming universities to lament fallen soldiers or food brought to the starving because people have been people?

However, we can (and have) had these things: Ted Turner, G. Pulla Reddy, Warren Buffet, Robert Owen, Robert W. Wilson, Michael Steinhardt, Albert Einstein... all atheists or agnostics or humanists, all philathropists and great people in their field. The earliest academies of sciences were founded by polytheists. The earliest advances in the sciences by tribal primatives, the earliest care shown the the injured by one long-lost proto-human to another.

We do not need to blame God for man's inhumanity to man, nor do we need to praise God for man's humanity.

Yes there have been evils worked in the name of divinity; there has also been considerable good done in the same names.

You could replace the word divinity with any other idea and the sentence would hold true.
...
Yes there have been evils worked in the name of science; there has also been considerable good done in the same names.
Yes there have been evils worked in the name of capitalism; there has also been considerable good done in the same names.
Yes there have been evils worked in the name of early-mid 20th century German national socialism; there has also been considerable good done in the same names.
Yes there have been evils worked in the name of children's educational programming; there has also been considerable good done in the same names.
Yes there have been evils worked in the name of ASH; there has also been considerable good done in the same names.
...
The sentence as an argument is without meaning.

Being able to think independently does not lessen your ability to be part of something greater. That choice is always up to you and if you prefer to stand apart, that's your decision.
However, the ability for independent thought (both the capacity and the social allowance for it) does, as history has shown, lead to a decrease in the religious observances of a peoples. Whenever religious intolerance and enforced homogeneity has been the norm religion has fared well, whenever rational debate has been encouraged the trend has been for atheism.

Even if you're a wolf, you know what a pack is...
To quote Howard Moon "... and I once saw a bush. ... your point is?"

Though life is rarely easy, I know I am loved.
Me too, but I do not require beleif in the divine for that.

[elrohana.livejournal.com]

I stand somewhere between the rock and the hard place.

I loathe organised religion in the same way I loathe labels and pigeonholes. However I do have my own belief system that is based partially on physics, chemistry, biology, and maths, and partially on my own ideas of why the world is. I DO think most organised religions have got it wrong, because the Universe is an entirely subjective experience, and any organisation, religious or otherwise, that tells you how the Universe IS, cannot be right for every single person on the planet. It just can't work. People are too different.

So whilst I don't believe in gods of any sort, I do believe other people do, and that gods therefore exist in the subjective version of the Universe that those god-fearing folk live in - in my Universe they don't exist and I therefore don't worry about them.

I do not, however, believe that this is the first and last time this particular energy form, currently known as Elrohana, has existed, because science tells me energy cannot be destroyed, it can only change state, and thus I have high hopes of finding a new form after this one wears out, perhaps as a speck of dust or maybe even a seed, an amoeba, an embryo, a cloud formation. Wouldn't that be wonderful, to have the cloud's view of the Earth, assuming we arrogant currently-human energy packages haven't ravaged it beyond beauty by the time I change state?

[malal.livejournal.com]

Subjective version of the universe? I believe that several large branches of philosophy would whole heartedly agree with you there. :-)

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

I'm leaning more to the Taoist view myself - that there is 'something' that meshes it all together. That's as simple, and as wonderful as the fact that the air I breath comes from the plants across the road, and as complicated as saying that 'everything is'.

Divinity is just a label, and a meaningless distinction - things just are, and we all have an opportunity to contribute in our own little way, to the majestic work of art that is the universe itself.

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

You know, Ed, the bridge doesn't suit you.

[purp1e-magic.livejournal.com]

The clergy are no more holy than you are. Or anyone else for that matter. They have no special insight in to the mind of God.

Islam is based on just that. The imam (in theory, at least) is elected by the people as being the most suitable for the job based on their knowledge of religious matters. Their purpose is to lead prayer. There are a few other functions, such as being the official to perform the marriage rite, but this is more on the same grounds as a registrar.

Quakerism is even closer to what you've just said. Quakers have very wide-ranging beliefs, although the faith is historically rooted in Christianity. Some Quakers don't even believe in god. The difference between a prayer and a meditation is that meditation is an isolating thing, with a self-focus. A prayer is a connection to something, be it the people in your thoughts, the people in the room or a higher being or holy spirit. A Quaker meeting is an interesting thing, because it's like meditation, but with a few words now and then from other people's deepest thoughts.

Based on comments you've made here and in the past, I think you'd find it an interesting thing to learn more about.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

That sounds interesting, and something I'll make a point of following up. Do you have possible suggestions as to start points?

[dj-rws.livejournal.com]

Your rant seems all too nihilistic too me, and that's exactly how I should feel about it as a scientist. But I don't.

Going back on one of your previous posts, to me god does exist and it is a question of faith and to me God leaves clues that only mean something to me. Those little co-incidences as if "by magic" or divine intervention seem to be targetted directly at me for the purpose of occasionally saying "something is watching".

For example, the last post I was thinking about, you said something about the Mandlebrot set and I wonder if it really was by sheer co-incidence or some kind of divine intervention that I happened to be thinking about the Mandlebrot set at work, for no particular reason other than trying to think up of names for characters in an RP game, and then logged into LJ to find the notion of religious faith and the Mandlebrot set mentioned in the same post. To anyone else a spooky co-incidence, to me, the sort of message I'd leave myself in order to convey enough of a hint without leaving any evidence. This is enough for me to reinforce my faith but as for the rest of you I don't really care what you think which I guess means that I agree with your doubts on what I call "organised religion". To me organised religion is in the same league as organised crime. Most atheists probably think they are the same. But I shall leave you with this nugget: It is your God given right to be an atheist ;)

[malal.livejournal.com]

Atheism is a belief, just like any other....

You cannot prove the existence of a god either way. All you can do is rule out certain dogma about certain beliefs, which doesn't really do much.

I do also get peeved at Atheists who treat it as anti-religion. It's not, it's absence of religion. It might be a pre-requisite to be anti-religion (there aren't many anti-religion agnostics! ;-) but it doesn't have to follow. Where it does, it has a habit of getting my back up, since actively trying to convert people in any direction peeves me.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Hmm, it's perhaps a bit. But only in the sense that I put forth that there's no celestial grader, declaring 'pass/fail' or fudging the results if we pray hard enough.

So in a sense, yes, there's no _meaning_ to being, beyond ... existing for it's own sake.

The M-Set is beautiful, complicated and fascinating. It doesn't have a reason to be, it just is. Life 'just is'. The puddle doesn't wonder why it's in exactly the right place for a puddle to form, but perhaps it appreciates it's 'puddleness'.